Worthy of Note

I haven't posted much recently -- not because nothing has happened, but because the weather has clamped down on how many matches were actually played over the last few weeks. There is one particular event (no war stories, sorry) that bears note, and that is the North Carolina Referee Mentor program. It held its first set of sessions across the state recently, and it is, in short, a godsend for all youth referees and referees who wish to excel in what they do. The program itself is run by active FIFA and retired FIFA referees and assistant referees, with direction and assistance from NCYSA and NCSRA. Its stated purpose is:

The NCSRA Mentor Program’s mission is to build a solid base of knowledge and skills in the art of officiating soccer, as well as give opportunity and exposure to the referees who will be the driving force of tomorrow’s NCSRA.

The program is beginning to take shape, and based on the first session, I have to say that I'm impressed both with the material and the instructors. The semblances of 'balancing fouls' are gone -- the instructors are teaching referees many of the same things found in Bob Evan's Blog For The Integrity of Soccer. With time and effort both on the part of the participants and instructors, it isn't a stretch to say that the 'artificial' justice advocated for so long will be wiped clean from our beloved game.

Name Calling, "Man-Management" and the Trickle-Down effect

Three 'short' tidbits today; my eventful weekend will have to wait.

The first comes (yet again) from the NC Soccer Forums, it's a thread on calling players by their names, specifically, when a referee knows one of the teams well.

To add my own commentary to this: As a referee, I try hard to learn the players' names, and I do my best to call them by name if I have a problem. I normally only get to learn the names of the captains and the 'bad' players (those that need that extra special attention to keep from getting a card), but I do my best to know at least 6 players names from each team by the time the game is over.

That having been said, I will rarely give encouragement to one particular player. If I see a wonderfully played ball, or two players fairly challenging each other, I'll say such -- I like to encourage fair play, and the players hear far too little encouragement as it is.

On the second topic, it seems that the pro clinics are now advocating a more strict view, as opposed to the 'Man-Management' that has (apparently) plagued the upper levels of US Soccer. I say apparently because I am no expert on this subject, but everything I've seen on TV and Youtube affirms that sometimes the punishment doesn't fit the crime. However, I cannot substitute my judgment, since I am not a National referee. I can say what it 'appears' to be, however.

I am exposed, in my travels, to State and National referees (as well as National Candidates), and I can say that even now, State and National Referees will say the very statements found in the link given above: The game "didn't need a red card", or that the referee should give one team some 'crap calls' to make them feel like he hasn't been picking on them all game (when they've done most of the fouling). This is not an attitude that is limited to one or two referees, but to the majority I've encountered. I hope that the new edict from USSF trickles down our State and National referees soon, because the longer that idea festers among them, the more it is spread to the 07s and 08s among us, making it much harder to dislodge the idea of conditional justice.

This trickle-down effect is needed more now than it was before, Soccer's popularity is exploding, and while we're short of referees, the ones we have need to have proper examples in front of them if they are to succeed. I stress reading Bob Evans and Ed Bellion's book (For the Good of the Game), not because I enjoy being a broken record, but because it brings so much to the refereeing table. We're given the Laws of the Game and our own meandering experiences when we start refereeing, and if we're lucky, our instructor will go beyond the basics. After that, we're at the mercy of Referees around us, as well as any mentoring programs that exist. We need supplemental reading, and that book provides it.

Sadly, what we don't have is a book more geared towards Youth referees -- that is, covering items that Youth referees deal with on a weekly basis. Cautionable offenses for 12 year olds? 14? The fouls are much different at the lower age groups (U12-U16), so how do you handle it? How do you handle coaches walking towards the AR and dissenting his call? Some Center referees simply ignore it, and hope their ARs do the same, I'm sure. Some ARs engage in conversation, others try to brush it off with a quick remark, and others simply freeze up. We need to know how to handle those situations, and what we really need is the feeling of being 'backed up'. There's nothing worse than coming in from a game where the coach badgers you and the center referee for a good part of the game and the Center gets upset with you for trying to fend off the coach.

It happens every week, some weeks it's easier than others -- but we as young referees need that safety net.

"Ref Management"

Lest you think I'm paranoid, this thread from the NC Soccer Forums website talks about "Ref Management", which is commonly known to referees as 'gamesmanship' (which is also a polite word for 'cheating'). It is obviously an abhorrent practice, but common amongst youth coaches.

Remember: What follows is my opinion, and doesn't reflect the opinion of anyone else (and if it does, I'll let them claim that).

I don't know how this practice festered, but I imagine it is 1 part watching American coaches on TV (a reference to famed Basketball coach Dean Smith is in that thread), and 2 parts psychology. Anyone who has been exposed to this great game for any length of time knows (from experience) that yelling at a referee will have the desired effect sometimes, even if the referee doesn't consciously admit it. You may get a contested call in your favor, just so you'll shut up for a second. You will, however, also get 'marked' by that referee forever. Forever in his head you will be known as a 'bad coach', and the next time you two meet, he likely won't be as accommodating, and you may find yourself ejected for what you may have deemed less than worthy circumstances.

Referees are human, and just like any other human, if you keep poking us, eventually we'll poke back, even if we seem otherwise unflappable. All the practice of gamesmanship does is drive otherwise good referees from the game, and causes, in perpetuity, an adversarial relationship between Coaches and Referees.

I argue that this adversarial relationship need not exist.

If a coach truly values the safety of his players, and sportsmanship above winning, then he and the referee are on the same page.

If, however, a coach values winning more than the Laws of the Game, he will find himself constantly at odds with the Referee, whose functions are to adjudicate the Laws of the Game, and to maintain the safety of all players (I explicitly mention the second, though it can be summed up just by adjudicating the Laws of the Game).

Little known fact: The Laws of the Game refer to safety 6 times, and 'dangerous' 7 times. In all instances, either the player is sent off (except in cases of injury where it refers to 'safe removal'), or a foul is called, and depending on the severity, either a caution or sendoff is mandated.

So at the outset, there is no legitimate reason for a coach to engage the Referee in conversation (or gamesmanship). In fact, the Laws say very much the same thing:

A team official may convey tactical instructions to the players during the match and must return to his position after doing so. All officials must remain within the confines of the technical area, where such an area is provided, and they must behave in a responsible manner. (Law 3, Decision 2, Laws of the Game)

The LoTG explicitly say what a coach (or team official) can and cannot do. Why then do they act otherwise?

Because we let them.

I do not mean that henceforth, Referees should caution or sendoff any coach that doesn't follow Law 3 explicitly -- but I do mean that they should be warned or cautioned for any action that can be deemed 'irresponsible'. I've covered those thoughts in a previous post, so I need not cover it here.

Why I'm talking about it today is to hopefully shed some light on what the Laws of the Game say about 'Ref Management', and what referees should do.

Simply: Any older referee should stop 'shrugging it off' when it happens to him. It may not bother you, but if it meets the criteria in the Laws Of the Game (subject to the Rule of thumb listed in my previous post), then you must deal with it. If you don't deal with it, younger referees will have it happen to them later on, and they do not have your intestinal fortitude. We as referees cannot allow irresponsible behavior to drive away young referees. We must act, both for the good of the game, and for the good of our profession.

NFHS Referees vs. USSF Referees

Referees improve by learning from other referees. It's just how it works. Having read and implemented items from For The Good Of The Game, I can tell you that while it sounds plausible, you don't add it to your toolkit until you've seen it successfully implemented.

New referees learn from those around them, and a good assignor will put them with more experienced referees (I don't know of an assignor that doesn't at the Club level, Recreation is another story for another blog post), and in a perfect world will be there for their first few matches. In a perfect world. In the world we live in, it is rare to see an assignor at the fields on Saturday, but when he is, you take heed of what he says.

We don't get that option too often, and that's why we rely on other referees.

The problem is, some of the other referees have developed bad habits, or worse, referee'd with the NFHS, and brought some NFHS guidelines over to USSF. Before I begin stirring hornet's nests, let me say that the only understanding I've gained from NFHS is from the rogue poster who posted the differences between NFHS Rules and FIFA's Laws of the Game. I say rogue because everything I've seen on the 'net lends credence to the fact that NFHS doesn't want its rulebook published unless you send them money.

This weekend, as I have been in other weekends, I was with a few NFHS referees through various matches. In the first, I was the Center referee (CR), and in the second, the Assistant Referee (AR). For the first match, a U14 Boys match, I had the honor of knowing at least one of the teams prior to the game -- I had refereed their matches when they were at the younger age group, and so I knew what to expect. The second team was made up of mostly hispanic players, and I knew that they would be 'ball handlers', mostly. As we were checking the teams' passes, my NFHS AR looked somewhat shocked when I didn't open with a spiel about Sportsmanship, or what I expect, or how I'd call the game, or yadda-yadda-yadda. He even asked me, right there, "Aren't you going to say anything to them?"

Short answer? No. There's nothing I need to say. They know how to play the game, they know what fouls are, and they know what they can and can't do. If they don't, then we should fire the coach and hire one that will teach them such things. It's not my function. My function is to fairly arbitrate the Laws of the Game, without prejudice.

The NFHS, I'm told, requires that referees have a 'pep talk' with players before the match about Sportsmanship. Given what I've seen from High school games, they should just cut out the requirement, because it isn't working.

This brings me to the second match. A different referee, long steeped in the lore of NFHS rules, had a 'pep' talk with each U14 girl's Team, about Sportsmanship, about how "He'd play advantage when possible", and about how they should 'talk to their hotheads' so they didn't get in his face. Overall, I wouldn't have wanted to have this guy as a referee if I were a player, he sucked all of the fun out of playing.

During the match, a player was tackled near the coaches' touchline at the halfway line, and he called the foul. It legitimately wasn't a situation where there was any sort of advantage that could have been gained by the team that had been fouled. She didn't go down, but the foul kept her from advancing, and made time for two defenders to swarm her.

The coach was naturally livid that the referee didn't play advantage, and shouted such. "You said you were going to play advantage! Why didn't you play advantage?? You should do what you said you would do!". Astute readers will catch the irony in the coaches inability to discern what advantage is, even against his somewhat idiotic expectation that there could have been an advantage given for that foul.

I feel somewhat sympathetic towards the coach, though it doesn't excuse his outburst. Players and coaches expect us to do what we say we are going to do. The referee, had it not been for his long exposure to NFHS rules, may have never started that fateful conversation with players in the first place, opening himself up to needless dissent by an understandably irate coach.

You may wonder what my pre-game check-in consists of. If I have two referees that I know aren't going to go off on a tangent, then I'll ask each to check a team in, while I chat with each coach, ask them how they are doing, and introduce myself. If at all possible, I try to learn and remember their name, so that if we have an issue in the match (say where they've gotten a little two loud with their dissent, or it keeps persisting), I'll walk over to them at an opportune moment, and say, "Bob, listen, you sound like you don't like how this game is going. I understand your frustration -- could you tone it done a little bit?" This is done on a case by case basis. Some coaches are amicable to smiles before the match, others seem to be adversarial, and it's much harder to approach them to make a good first impression. Invariably, these are the coaches I have problems with. If I can make that good first impression, then I can spend the first 30 minutes of the match in relative peace and quiet, able to focus on administering the LotG fairly.

If I have two ARs that I'm not comfortable with (say two junior ARs, or two middle aged ARs that have done NFHS), then we'll check the teams in together. We'll normally approach the Home team first (to give the visiting team more time to warm up -- it is important not to make the visiting team think you are unfairly picking on them, they are after all, the strangers, and inherently feel out of place), and make a bee-line for the Team Manager (you can normally tell who it is since they have player passes and the match report). I'll exchange a few words with them, and they'll give me the player passes, which I'll pass off to an AR. If I've developed a good initial rapport with the team Manager or Coach, I'll ask them to help me by calling off the names on the player passes. This saves me from 1) Butchering names (or having to call by number, and 2) allows my head to stay up and maintaining eye contact with the players, to seem confident. If I haven't, it usually goes like this. The coach has already told his players to line up (sadly, because of our NHFS brethren) and I'll say, "Gents (or Ladies), we'll call your number, give us your name, and go back to whatever you were doing." One AR will call the number off the pass, the other will match the name to the sheet, and I'll subtly check each player's equipment as they pass. After we're done with that team, I'll let the coach know that we have about X minutes to game time, and that we'll call for captains shortly.

Rinse. Lather. Repeat. I'm just as brief to the captains. They come, they shake hands, I show the coin, show heads and tails (I don't use standard coins, I'll use soccer-esque coins), and ask who wants to call it. They call it, and I ask them which side they'd like to attack, they pick, and I recap what just happened, and they leave.

I give final reminders to my ARs (check the nets: note any holes, back me up on time), and then send them off to the nets.

If both teams are taking their time getting out to the field, I'll let them (unless there is a closely scheduled match on the same field). If one team is out and the other doesn't look close to coming out, I'll have the SAR say something. If they look like they are close to coming out, I normally won't force the issue with a whistle. Simply put, I gain nothing from being a hardass, and lose the 'easy going feeling' that everyone has until the first foul is called.

As a referee, we don't need to make things harder for ourselves by being dictatorial when it doesn't suit the Spirit of the Game. We are required and encouraged to be that way when it's necessary, but where NFHS goes wrong is that they Americanized a game that doesn't need it, and in the process have hurt what makes Soccer special -- its spirit.

Four Pointing Outward, One Inward

We tread on dangerous ground when we discuss faults in a soccer match. I do it here in my blog -- but not for the purpose of ridiculing the center referee (or any other participant), rather because my goal is to share my experience with fellow referees. Every youth referee out there needs to know that it's normal for there to be mistakes. Before the age of blogs, Soccer Referees had to rely on their 'small circle' of Refereeing 'buddies' to learn their craft. Now, with the age of Youtube and blogs, we can replay important events over and over again, chew at it from every angle, and arrive at a conclusion on how to make it better next time. As I've (hopefully) demonstrated in the past, this is my intent with this blog. I purposefully keep my name and specific location hidden -- not because I'm afraid of retaliation, but because it isn't important who I am or where I'm from: What's important is having resources for referees to learn from each other.

There is one central point where blogs (and most especially sites like AskTheRef) are far superior to talking with other referees in person. First, the person that makes the mistake has a degree of anonymity. He can ask his question (or share his view) without fear of someone thinking he's an idiot for having such a question. Secondly, all concerned give their honest and frank opinion. Too many times I've seen or been with referees who simply congratulate each other on the game without exploring the problems in the match. It takes a special amount of mental courage (that I know I don't have) to tell a senior referee (or referee in your local circle): "I don't think that was the right call back there, why didn't you do this?" or "What was your reasoning behind this?"

When you ask those questions, you either 1) get the information you desire, and realize that they misapplied the laws or 2) get the information you desire, and realize you've learned something. Often 1) becomes the case, especially if all parties involved are well versed in the LoTG and not their myths.

As a "For instance": In an area that I referee often, the higher level referees (06 and 07) frequently bring up 'balance' at halftime. The same type of 'balance' that Donald Evans talks about in his blog, For the Integrity of Soccer. Imagine, as a young referee, if I were to bring up the idea that fouls need not be "balanced"? I'd be ostracized from this group. So what can I do? Write about it here, hope that referees see that 'balance' is not about 'equal' fouls.

However, I'm still shying away from why I penned this post in the first place: This blog is not meant to catalogue mistakes without looking deeper into its place as a teacher for others. I will never beat anyone over the head with a mistake, and if I offer up criticism, I always do my best to include my own faults as subject for improvement. I do believe I have many faults that I need to improve as a referee, and in no particular order, they are:

• I have a tendency to 'raise' my voice where it isn't needed. For instance, as an AR recently, an defender pushed an attacker out of bounds near me. Instead of keeping my voice lower so that he and the attacker could hear my displeasure at his tactic, I instead had a deeper and louder voice, that along with my horizontal hand wag, said "NO!" in a firm voice. That's one of my issues, I have 'nice mode', and I have 'I'm displeased at your actions and will let you know in a firm, loud voice' mode. The problem is, I don't use the third mode, "Calmly tell player not to do stupid things like that again without making them feel like they are three" enough. I tend to react more quickly than I should, which can be seem as being upset over (what the players may deem) as trifling.
  
• I have a hard time taking overt criticism or 'gamesmanship' from coaches. My lack of being able to do so comes from two singular incidents, one of which is chronicled here, a day I'd rather forget. The other incident was from when I first started refereeing, I was a 14 year old boy refereeing U12 Recreation games under the Two-Man system. I had a coach who yelled at me for the entire match, as well as stepped onto the pitch frequently. Being a new referee (and I suppose, being a hardass), I didn't want him on the pitch, so I asked him to move back. He kept doing it, so I ended up giving two more warnings before I sent him to the parking lot for his behavior (Yelling/Dissent+Stepping onto the Pitch). Since then there has been only one time where I should have sent a coach off, but didn't. However, I've had a few matches where the coaches received warning glares with wagging hand (in a 'no more' motion) from me, as well as polite but firm chats.
  

My thoughts on Coaches are simple: If I would caution a U16 boy for shouting across the pitch that that was the 'worst call he'd ever seen, and what was I thinking', then why shouldn't I do the same for a coach?

There's a rule of thumb that I've seen every now and again when dealing with coaches before cautioning or sending them off:

• Public: The actions must be loud enough for opponents (and the referee) to hear
• Persistent: The coach must do it more than once; or if we are going by the wording in the Laws, he gets three chances before it is "Persistent"
• Personal: He must attack the referee's officiating or his personal stature

I've often been told that It has to meet these three criteria (or perhaps I misheard) to warrant a caution. In my opinion, I couldn't take more than 1 or 2 of these criteria more than once before I said something. I wouldn't take it so far as a caution the first time, just a friendly chat or a knowing look with appropriate hand gesture (the horizontal hand moving from one side to the other quickly, indicating 'enough'), but I would address it so that the coach doesn't believe he has carte blanche to bring the game into disrepute with his actions.

I also believe that the threshold should be lower with the lower level coaches and referees. However, while we are told in our certification classes what behavior is unacceptable, we aren't taken through any scenarios that help us on the pitch. It's also a topic that referees (myself especially) are 'afraid' to bring up, for fear that we may be seen as power abusers.

I've written long enough for one post, but here's the long and short of it: This blog is meant to help, not ridicule, and I'll do my best to keep all details anonymized enough assist in that function.

The DOGSO That Wasn't

There is one match from this weekend (in particular) that I've been wanting to write about. The reason it stands out is that there are several points from For the Good of the Game that would have mitigated the damage in this particular match. I do apologize if it is tough for me to adequately describe particular fouls -- it's all part of writing, and learning to improve said craft (refereeing and writing).

This particular match pitted two U16 boys teams against each other (Red and White, for clarity's sake). The Red team (as I was to find out after) was the undefeated team, and the white team had quite a few footballers that were taller (and generally bigger) than their opponents. The referee in this match (a gentleman who I've known for years, but he turns into Mr. Kraft (From For The Good of the Game when refereeing)) was a middle-aged, pot bellied fellow who would not be able to keep up with a U14 boys match, let alone a U16 boys match. Please forgive me for such frankness, but it is part and parcel to my story (and I most certainly do not want to turn this into a 'I could do a better job' -- If I could, my assignor would have obviously put me in as Center referee).

The undefeated team committed unfair challenges early, and this continued throughout the first half as they rose over their opponents, 1-0. They would blatantly push their opponents (especially when they saw the referee was out of position), and would also move their opponents out of the way at midfield during header attempts (a nice hand to the back works wonders). In short, they were doing everything unfair they could think of to win. The referee let a lot go, and I came away with the opinion that his positioning contributed to fouls he didn't call. At half time, I let him know that I had been flagging those 'pushes in the back' [uggh], and if he needed help with a foul, even on the opposite touchline, I could see the blatant pushes and would help flag if he were caught off-position.

Lest you think I am out of my territory -- you are technically correct. An Assistant Referee's 'area of control' goes from half line to goal line, where the half line meets the touchline to where the goal line meets the nearest goal post. However, and this is on the advice of a Fifa referee -- you can always assist with fouls if you can clearly see the push, and the referee has the wrong angle. It's more important to punish the foul.

Back to the game. In the early second half, an attacker played the ball from half to an attacker that was crossing into the penalty area. As the ball was coming in and the attacker went up for the header(the attacker was in the penalty area), a defender pushed the attacker so that he couldn't get to the ball. The referee wisely called the penalty kick, even as the Red coach went apeshit. I hate to mince words, but it would have been cautionable if a player did it, but such things are usually looked over when done by coaches (for reasons I can't fathom).

The white team scored, and the score became 1-1. Later in the half, after Red not being able to mount an attack, white catches a break-away, and the lone attacker crosses the half circle, and as he's at the end of the center circle, the only defender to catch up to him (the rest are upfield) recklessly tackles the attacker.

Here are the available options to the referee:

1. Caution the defender for a tactical foul that breaks up attacking play
   
2. Send off the defender for DOGSO (sell-able, but appeal-able later)
   
3. Send off the defender for a tackle that endangers the safety of the opponent
   

With regards to 2) there are three of four D's met:

• Distance to the ball: The defender isn't close to the ball, it's out in front of the attacker a good 3 yards
  
• Defenders: There is one defender between the attacker and the goal (the goalkeeper)
  
• Direction: The attacker is heading straight for goal, albeit still 45 yards out
  
• Distance to the goal: 45 yards

The last criterion has not been met, and while the referee could send the player off for it, it would be wrong, and if I were the coach, I would appeal based on this and wanting to keep an undefeated record.

With regards to 3) An argument could be made: The defender wasn't trying to tackle the ball, and he brought down the opponent with the express purpose of not wanting him to beat the tackle and score. It was reckless, and borderline endangering his opponent.

The referee chose 1). In my opinion, it was the most technically correct choice, but I also believe that it was a bad decision for the game. The defending (red) team was trying to keep its undefeated record, and their conduct all game bordered on horrible. A foul at that point should not have been punished with any less than a send-off, to send the message that you cannot play illegally and not be punished for it. The problem was, the defender was smart enough to 'game the laws', and he knew that the referee couldn't send him off for his actions.

The white coach was quite upset at this decision, and rightly so. His team had been continuously fouled, and they were not only playing against an undefeated team, they were playing against a referee that did not do justice to them when they were wronged. In effect, the referee was allowing the offending team another chance to egregiously foul their opponent before someone was sent off.

Personally, this is the part of the game that disgusts me. The 'fair' course of action, or the 'right' course of action isn't the course that the laws allow for. Everyone on that pitch knows that the attacker should have been sent off (it would have been 'fair'), but there was no clear justification to do so. It is as if cheaters get two chances.

If I were in the referee's shoes? In my opinion, the foul would have been worthy of a send-off due to the fact that I believe it endangered the safety of the opponent, here's how:

• The ball wasn't near the attacker (or the defender), so the attacker's attention wasn't towards the opponent coming from his 7 O'Clock
  
• The attacker was travelling at full speed, and a false move could cause serious injury
  
• The defender willfully tackled the attacker from the left side, with the express purpose of stopping him

If you add all of these together, you get a recipe for injury.

My goal is to show clearly that I'm ready for these types of matches. I am in shape, I can keep up, and I have the mental toughness for the task. I just have to show it to my assignor.

Just a little further...

This past weekend was just chock full of amusing stories -- so much so that I grin each time I think about them. This particular event occured during the U13 Girls match in which I was the Center Referee. The Defending team committed a foul in their half of the field, between the edge of the half circle and the edge of the penalty arc. I was right next to the foul when it occurred, in perfect position to see the infraction. As the foul occurred, I blew my whistle, trotted the 5 yards to the spot of the foul, and simultaneously indicated direction.

The defenders had kicked the ball away in an attempt to slow down the free kick (not far, just a few yards), and I warned the defender against doing that again. In the interim, I had pointed to the spot of the foul and told the nearest attacker (the one who had been fouled) that the spot was at her feet. I went ahead and took up a position for the ensuing free kick.

The coach, in what I can only see is an attempt at Gamesmanship, told the attacker that the foul was about 10 yards farther upfield (at the edge of the penalty arc) than it really was! He's shouting for her to move it up, and she starts to move it up. I tell her to move it back 10 yards, and the coach was livid. "What? That's too far back! The foul happened at the Penalty Arc!" I ignored him and told the player to move it back. She did, I whistled for the restart, and she scored.

I couldn't help myself by turning to the coach and asking (rhetorically) "Still complaining?"

To which he replied, "Cute."

There were two ways I could have handled it -- I could have taken more time, addressed the coach (specifically remind him that his job is to not try to do my job, and vice versa, or that his voice would be more soothing and more beneficial for him if it were lower when directed at me), and had to add the time later -- or, I could do what I did.